[Bug faq/333] Do not report build errors in bugzilla!

["jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=333

--- Comment #116 from Joseph Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-18 15:04:12 UTC ---
As I said in bug 11878:

We're planning to move the glibc FAQ to the wiki.  I'd be inclined to say we
should also close bug 333 at the same time, and officially say that build bug
reports in Bugzilla are fine if they have all the expected information - with
an explanation in the FAQ of what is relevant and of known build issues (such
as compilers defaulting to i386 rather than more recent x86; trying to build
for a ports architecture without the ports add-on; building with certain
distribution compilers that default to -fstack-protector; all of these should
of course be detected by configure, but the FAQ is the place for longer
explanations of how to fix them); the FAQ would also discuss how builds of
low-level system libraries such as glibc are intrinsically more complicated
than those of almost all other software.  But where build failures result from
old compilers, linkers etc., I think we should also be more active in
increasing the minimum versions required by configure (rather than trying to
work around deficiencies in older versions).  Roland, Carlos, Ryan - what do
you think?

See also Andrew Pinski's comment of 2006-08-04.  Build failures can have tricky
system dependencies, but so can e.g. some concurrency issues reported as NPTL
bugs.  If we look at reported bugs promptly then we can make sure they have all
the relevant information - and if we make configure detect problems with the
build environment and give errors early, we can reduce the incidence of
duplicate reports for the same environmental problem.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.